FIRST SECTION

Application no. 30750/11 Iltizam Nizam Oglu AKBARLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Iltizam Akbarli , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Imishli . He is rep resented before the Court by Mr I. A liyev , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was nominated by the electoral coalition of the Popular Front and Müsavat Parties to stand as one of its candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010 and applied for registration as a candidate in the single-mandate Imishli Electoral Constituency No. 79.

As t he Electoral Code required that each nomination as a candidate for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of 450 voters, on 6 October 2010 the applicant submitted to the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) twelve signature lists containing 600 voter signatures in support of his candidacy.

1. Refusal to register the applicant as a candidate

On 12 October 2010 the “working group” established by the ConEC conducted the verification of authenticity of the signatures in the lists submitted by the applicant. The applicant participated in this procedure.

On 13 October 2010 the applicant was given copies of the “working group” documents, including the expert opinion, the minutes of the verification of authenticity of signatures, and the table of results of the verification procedure. According to these documents, 287 out of the 600 signatures were considered invalid for the following reasons: (a) 237 signatures were “repeat” signatures; (b) 15 signatures were falsified (executed by one person in the name of several other persons); and (c) 35 signatures were considered invalid for unspecified “other reasons”.

By a decision of 13 October 2010, relying on the above findings, the ConEC refused the applicant ’ s request for registration as a candidate.

2. Decision of the Central Electoral Commission

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) against the ConEC decision of 12 October 2010. He complained, inter alia , that the findings of the ConEC “working group” that such a large number of signatures were invalid were factually wrong, unsubstantiated, and arbitrary. In particular, the findings that some signatures were falsified or “repeated” were wrong and it was unclear on the basis of what criteria and methodology those findings were made. The “working group” members had not taken any steps to corroborate their findings with any other reliable evidence . There were no specialised hand-writing experts among the members of the ConEC “working group” and, therefore, its findings concerning the authenticity of some signatures were highly subjective and arbitrary. The applicant also complained that, contrary to the requirements of Article 59.13 of the Electoral Code, he had not been provided with a copy of the minutes of the examination of the validity of signature lists at least 24 hours prior to the ConEC meeting dealing with his registration request.

Enclosed with his complaint, the applicant also submitted affidavits by twenty-three voters whose signatures were found by the ConEC to have been invalid, in which they confirmed the authenticity of their signatures by stating that the signatures indeed belonged to them.

On 1 7 October 2010 an expert of the CEC “working group” issued an opinion stating that, according to the minutes and table of results of the examination of the signature lists by the CEC “working group” (not available in the case file), 228 out of 600 signatures submitted by the applicant were invalid.

On 18 October 2010 the CEC rejected the applicant ’ s appeal, noting that its own “working group” had examined the signature lists and found that 228 signatures were invalid. It decided to uphold the ConEC ’ s decision to refuse the applicant ’ s registration.

The applicant was present neither at the “working group” meeting nor the CEC meeting.

According to the applicant, the expert opinion of 17 October 2010 was made available to him on 20 October 2010, while the minutes and table of results of the examination by the CEC “working group” were not given to him at all.

3. Appeals lodged with the domestic courts

On 20 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the CEC decision with the Baku Court of Appeal. He reiterated his complaints made before the CEC concerning the ConEC decision and proc edures. Moreover, he complained, inter alia , that the CEC failed to ensure his presence at its meetings. Relying on a number of provisions of the domestic law and on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant claimed that his right to stand for election was breached.

Enclosed with his appeal, the applicant also submitted affidavits by over eighty voters whose signatures were found to have been invalid, in which they confirmed the authenticity of their signatures by stating that the signatures indeed belonged to them.

On 26 October 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal ordered a forensic handwriting analysis of the applicant ’ s signature lists.

A forensic handwriting expert of the Forensic Expert Centre of the Ministry of Justice received this decision and accompanying documents on 27 October 2010. According to the expert ’ s opinion issued on 28 October 2010, a total of 224 signatures were executed by on e person in the name of others, consisting of 33 separate groups containing up to 30 signatures each, where each group was executed by the same person . One signature in each group was considered valid, while the remainder was considered invalid, resulting in a total of 191 invalid signatures.

By a judgment of 29 October 2010, the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s appeal, finding that the signature lists had been examined by the electoral commissions in accordance with the procedure specified by law and that the applicant ’ s complaints about the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the procedure and the electoral commissions ’ decisions were ill-founded.

On 3 November 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. He reiterated his complaints made before the electoral commissions and the Baku Court of Appeal. He also questioned the reliability of the forensic expert report of 28 October 2010, noting that the expert issued her opinion within one day. In his opinion, it was a grossly inadequate amount of time for conducting a proper handwriting analysis of 600 signatures.

By a decision of 5 November 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal.

COMPLAINT

Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, t he applicant complains that his right to stand as a candidate in free elections and his right to an effective remedy were breached, because he was arbitrarily disqualified from running for election. In particular, the procedures for verification of voter signatures in support of his candidacy and for examination of his complaints lacked transparency and sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness, and the decisions of the electoral commissions and domestic courts were arbitrary and contrary to a number of requirements of the domestic electoral law .

ITMarkFactsComplaintsEND

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to stand as a candidate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature? Did the procedure for determination of candidates ’ eligibility contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary decisions?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3 . The parties are requested to submit detailed factual information concerning the methods of composition and functioning of the “working groups” at various electoral-commission levels (including the constituency electoral commission in the applicant ’ s constituency), the manner of selection and appointment of their members, as well as information as to whether their membership included any qualified experts and/or specialists ( mütəxəssis ) possessing expertise relevant to the tasks they were charged with. The parties are requested to inform the Court whether members of electoral commissions ’ “working groups” had received any specialised training before their appointment and, if so, describe the types of trainings received.